Well, That Didn’t Take Very Long
I’m guessing any number of people are saying or thinking “Told you so” right about now.
‘Sister Wives’ family cites gay marriage ruling in polygamy case
Sheesh. I don’t think I wanna know what’s coming next.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Legal
No doubt if Jared Fogle had gone to trial versus pleading guilty, his legal team would pull this out too.
I won’t get into the moral, ethical, or religious aspect of polygamy. But from a purely legal stand point based on that ruling they may have a case/argument.
Again not saying its right just that the same logic used to decide the gay marriage issue could be used in this case.
I won’t get into the moral, ethical, or religious aspect of polygamy. But from a purely
legallogical stand point based onthat ruling they may have a case/argumenthuman psychology, what man in their right MIND would want more than one wife???.Well, now, Chip, there was an episode of ST:NG in which at the end, it was recommended that each woman have four husbands so that her children would be genetically diverse. This was because one colony had taken to cloning its founders and the other colony had become separated from the first one.
It sounds a lot like something Mudd would like, if you ask me.
I have no clue. Have two girls and have already told the wife when the oldest hits 12 , me and the boy are barricading ourselves in the basement and she can call us when its all over…
Over…it’s never over….
Age limits. NAMBLA has been after this for a long time.
That might actually be harder for the perv crowd to manage. The courts have long ruled that the state can limit certain activities to adults, or otherwise by age.
Give it time, Hondo. Thirty years ago, would you have ever thought the federal government would require states to allow two members of the same sex marry each other?
It’s not so much different with age. States still differ re: ages at which one can marry, usually with consent of a parent. It wasn’t so long ago that states differed with regard to age of consent to sexual relations – it may still be that way, I don’t know – but my point is that the ability to legally consent to something, whether its marriage, sex, contracts, etc. hasn’t always been fixed – it depends on the time and place.
So, the next step for the NAMBLA deviants and their ilk is to change the current rhetoric used to support same sex marriage from “two consenting adults” to “consenting persons” (polygamists will support that, because it removes the “two” requirement) and then get USSC to agree that age is irrelevant to the ability to consent; rather it should be based on emotional maturity. Emotional maturity cannot be objectively measured, so Voila!: States cannot prohibit anyone from marrying anyone else based on age (or more than one person for that matter).
Different legal principles, IMO.
The argument for gay marriage was largely along equal protection lines; arguments for polygamy/polyandry would be likewise. That’s traditionally been something which the Federal courts have given great weight.
However, an argument against lower limits for age of consent would face a very different legal hurdle. Federal courts have consistently upheld the government’s right to establish age limits for various things – driving, military service, marriage, consent, entry into legally-binding contracts, etc . . . . In general, the rationale is that it is permissible to do so due to the lack of maturity and/or ability for rational judgement possessed by many or most youths; they can therefore be held to different standards and granted different, usually more limited legal rights and authorities than “full adults” (generally age 18, but for some purposes even older in some jurisdictions).
In fact, in relatively recently ruling that minors below the age of 18 at the time their crime was committed cannot be executed (Roper v. Simmons, 2005), the SCOTUS has explicitly endorsed this concept.
Bottom line: what you propose might happen. But I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting. Polygamy/polyandry for adults may well be a different story.
Thoughtful reply, as usual, and I’d agree that we’ll see polygamy legalized sooner than the other ( except maybe for the religious element to it that the left will abhor). However, I’m afraid that the age of consent issue will follow soon after.
Virtually every civil rights case against states for the last 80 years has been based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and each time a plaintiff won, the States’ power make and enforce its own laws has been diminished. (Sometimes for good reason, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here.)
The power of a state to determine legal “status” of persons within its borders has, until fairly recently and with a few exceptions, been firmly within the purview of the individual states. In fact, if I recall correctly, even WHO can marry WHOM has been recognized by earlier USSC decisions as firmly within the purview of a state; which gives rise to differences among the states regarding degrees of consanguinity, age of consent, etc. In my view, the Obergefell case eviscerated that legal principal, at lease as it pertains to marriage, and opened the door to future suits requiring states to lower or eliminate the age requirement for marriages.
I hope that never comes, but it seems that we as a country are “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” and I’m afraid that time will come sooner rather than later.
It all happened when this country started listening to atheists and dumocrats and the scum in the white house, the communist, muslim queer! Take God out of schools, out of business, off the streets this is whats left….”how’s that working for ya”/
I notice that the Libtards don’t ever make disparaging remarks about Allah. Perhaps we should take a lesson from the Mussis.
Not just them, ever since the left has brought homosexuality into the limelight they’ve been trying to destigmatize pedophilia, liberals will stop at nothing to promote perversity!
I’d like to remind you guys that up until the 19th century, if a young lady was not betrothed by 16 and/or married by the age of 18, she was likely to remain a spinster. At 20, she was an old maid.
And before that, it was not unusual at all to see 14 year old girls married and pregnant. Peter Paul Rubens, a well-known artist of the Renaissance, lost his first wife and child to pneumonia following the flu and married his favorite model, the 14-year-old daughter of his gallery manager.
It’s simply the viewpoint of the times, nothing else.
My grandmother was remarried by the time she was sixteen.
She was an orphan, in Texas. I do not know if the first husband died, or what.
History is relevant only in the context of the times… at that time the average life span was how long?
From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint – like my daughters before them, any would-be adult perv suitors of any of my grandchildren need to be both fast and bulletproof.
Average life expectancy between 1800-1850 was 37.
16 was damn near middle age.
History is always relevant, if for no other reason than education. It need not be a straitjacket that controls today, but it can show what has – and has not – worked in the past.
However, if ignored history can be and often is involuntarily repeated – with similar disastrous results.
With a lifespan of 40yrs that would follow.
We live a little longer now which is not to say that our young people seem to grow up any faster. Mentally that is
Fucking mormons…they might not have the dumbest fucking origin story for their religion in the history of mankind, but those ass wipes are certainly in the top three…
Let them form an LLC where all 5 are equal financial partners and get group insurance rates from a small business carrier…that will cover their idiotic ramblings…
WHOA there VOV, WHOA!!!
Yes, once upon a time the Mormons DID espouse plural marriage, in order to get all the widows and families of the dead husbands out to the new colony of Utah.
But the practice was officially ended by the church in 1890. Yes, there were families who continued to practice it afterwards, but most of them moved to the “colonies” down in Mexico.
The only ones that still practice polygamy – as a group- are split-offs from the LDS church, i.e., the “Reorganized” church.
If an LDS member is found out to be a bigamist/polygamist, they are given a chance to get things right. Otherwise, they are ex-communicated.
True. But as I recall, ending polygamy was effectively a precondition of Utah’s becoming a state. IMO it’s questionable whether the practice would have been ended in the mainstream Mormon Church otherwise.
Wrong, a clown from the Arizona strip was busted for polygamy and sat in the Kingman jail, for a long time, I think they finally sent him to Texas where he had another commune there!
whoa there big guy. Ever heard of Scientology?
This isn’t even a situation of unintended consequences. It was pretty plainly argued other extreme groups would use the courts to push through their own agendas on marriage.
It will be interesting to see if the courts even try to deny the claim. I don’ think they will because once the court argues the government (via the people) can determine what constitutes a marriage then lawsuits will begin again or at least legislation will arise to invalidate same-sex marriage.
They very point I was trying to make above but much better stated.
well can we marry dogs and cats now ! ! ! !
is age limits or underage marriages still off limits
it’s anything goes now
Sure, why not. I have raised 8 cats and two dogs. They were all well-behaved and people thought well of them. None of them were drunks, none got into trouble with the law, and all of them enjoyed going to school and competing in stuff. Yes, there is such a thing as cat school.
I know you’re joking, but consider some of the more radical animal rights’ groups who consider animals to be sentient being co-equal with humans. How long before they push for trans-species “marriage?”
There’s also the incest angle. Don’t recall the name, but some college prof in the northeast US gained notoriety when it came out he was having a sexual relationship with his adult daughter. More than a few folks said it wasn’t anyone else’s business since she was over 18.
I don’t want to be conceited or anything, but…
CALLED IT!!!
I think Rush called it a number of years ago and got ridiculed for it by the Pink Mafia.
I agreed with him that it’s a logical extension and here we are.
I’m waiting for some guy to marry his ’57 Chevy.
Or his goat . . . like maybe the old man in this HIGHLY NSFW ADAM SANDLER SKIT.
Wadda ya think this is? Iraq or Afghanistan?
😀
Nah, Adam Sandler was from NYC. (smile)
Really? And all this time I thought he was from New Hampshire (moved there after being born in NY.)
Damn flatlanders.
Besides, according to Iowahawk, in Iraq it was donkeys. (possibly NSFW, but funny as hell – smile)
Hell, the hadjis in A-stan would poke any animal sitting still for more than ten seconds.
Too late..mooslimes are already marrying their goats!!
This is not going to end well. . . .
stupidly like this never does. I just wonder which one of the Supreme Court justice are going to engineer a new law like the won that made all this possible:(
One wife is enough trouble for any man.
If a man can find our or five women crazy enough or weak enough to share him, why not? He deserves whatever happens to him. It is the forced marrage of under aged girls that I find repulsive. Warren Jeffs and his perverted cult followers are a case in point. He handed out very young girls to his supporters as rewards for their continued support.
Having four or more wives and their assorted children on welfare burns my ass. The state can’t even tax their property as it belongs to the “Church”.
Four wives = Four sets of in-laws. That is four times the amount of bail that you have to post for that brother-in-law who likes to drink and drive; four pregnant teenage nieces who will move in because Mama kicked her out, again; and four mother-in-laws that will constantly tell you that her daughter could have done much better if she never married you. My advice is to marry an orphan.
An orphan, or Elaine Ricci (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Elaine, where for art thou?
Next: The Hooper Triplet’s. A man can dream
Of course, what’s the penalty for bigamy?
Two wives.
Remember when marriage was the legal union of one man and one woman? As sentences go, nouns and verbs are the most important parts, the essentials without which there is no sentence at all. Well, the Supreme Court ruled that the nouns aren’t so important after all. Thus, marriage is the legal union of one ____________ and one ____________. Any combo will do and since the nouns don’t matter, who cares about the adjectives? So, three men, six women, one man and seventeen women….what the hell.